Saturn is Tilted after Moon Smashes into it. What kind of comms is this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (78)
sorted by:
I know and I agree.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before rather than just make a snap judgement, call it false, and move on. I certainly didn't intend to insinuate anything else if that's how it came off.
I apologize for my tone. It was reactive and unfair. Not to excuse myself, but it's because I've had unpleasant encounters with other people who only seemed to want to pick apart everything I said. Those exchanges had the character of an attack rather than a discussion, and I was expecting the harsh judgment of an ossified religious mind. I do appreciate you taking the time to make such a thoughtful reply. Thank you for that.
I understand not wanting to trust an unsubstantiated claim. I wouldn't want you to. It seems that you have already looked into it, so I will only say that I didn't mention the possible gap between Genesis 1 & 2 out of any support for Darwinian evolution, which I don't believe in at all.
As far as what theologians have understood throughout time, for hundreds of years theologians believed the entire universe revolved around the earth. This view was based upon their understanding of scripture, which they thought supported the cosmology of Ptolemy. It wasn't until Galileo started looking through a telescope that any of that changed. Agreement does not equal truth. People in charge who agree about a thing can be wrong, and that is likely when they think they must defend what they believe by persecuting dissenters, which they did to Galileo.
As for understanding the scriptures, what we get wrong is not to be conflated with God getting it wrong or being deficient in His power to preserve truth. The scriptures themselves declare that God hides truth, which seems to have the purpose of getting us to make an investment of effort in searching it out. They even says He seals up the revelation of the meaning of prophecy until His own appointed times. (If you want me give you chapters and verses, I will get back to you about that after the hurricane.)
In reference to the edit, I think the fault was mine. It was in what I had inferred.
Fair enough, and all good. I see how those kinds of encounters would make one somewhat defensive. I was a bit snippy in my reply myself and I won't hand wave it as just being in response to your tone, as that seems a dishonest excuse. So sorry from me as well and all is forgiven.
I didn't mean to imply that the theory (or you) directly supports evolution, as it really doesn't, just that it starts to wade into the territory of the old-Earth claims (assuming you believe the gap was a significant period of time. From what I gather, not everyone does) view which is one step closer to being able to argue for evolution (seeing as long periods of time are necessary for Darwinian Evolution). I suppose I'd simply ask how long you think the gap was? Is the theory, for you, a way to reconcile the alleged evidence of an old Earth with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Or something else?
And that's certainly true, just because everyone says something is true doesn't mean it is (“safe and effective”, anyone?). But I suppose I’d say there's also the angle that people were simply believing the “experts” of their time and as such were trying to find ways to reconcile that with the Bible, despite the “experts” being wrong, and their ideas flawed regarding geocentrism (I doubt the idea came solely from the Bible. More likely logical extrapolation of the observation that the sun “appears” to go around the Earth, among other reasons). Which would be exactly like people now trying to reconcile evolution by saying Genesis is an allegory or whatever other explanation. And then attacking and persecuting those who don’t agree with the new belief/interpretation. The only difference is now it’s secular types doing the persecuting with no need for the religious backing. Maybe because now they find destroying religion (the reason for the theory of evolution, in my opinion) a better alternative to gaining control of people over infiltrating it and using it as the control mechanism (or method to deceive us all to hell). So I suppose my point is that it’s the ideas or misinterpretations of men rather than the Word of God, whether through deception or just honest error.
The Bible doesn’t teach geocentricism (and the verses used to justify it are/were pretty streched) nor does it teach flat Earth or evolution. Peronsally, I also don’t think it’s presenting an old Earth and think the evidence we have today lines up fine with this and with a young Earth. So while there is absolutely the interpretation aspect, I think there are many cases of people trying to conform to the world and its ideas of what is true and of God, rather than basing it solely on the Bible (as we see today). So rather than believing geocentrism (or flat Earth/evolution for that matter) because of the scripture, people may have tried to make the scripture fit geocentrism. And I’m particularly wary in this ‘age of the cabal’ with massive, society-spanning lies/deceptions being commonplace of these recent ideas that seem to change commonly accepted theology. We should certainly always evaluate and make sure we’re not complacement in our belief and that our interpretations of the Bible line up with reality (and what scripture actually says), as it always does. But I’ve also become quite a traditionalist, so I’m wary of just abandoning old ideas that have stood the test of time for some new shiny idea without a convincing reason or good evidence. Assuming the main purpose of the gap theory, and where you’re coming from, truly is an old Earth I would need more evidence for the old Earth to begin with (in liue of direct, or some form of, Biblical support, of course). If it became evident that the Earth was very old the gap theory would probably be what I’d most seriously consider as it seems, as you said originally, perfectly plausible.
Now none of this “experts deceiving” stuff may be the case with the gap theory (or geocentrism), maybe it is just a case of people being wrong and learning the correct information a long time later, but it certainly could be. Regardless, gap theory is definitely a possibility how I see it, I’ll admit. Nothing I know of directly contradicts the idea, and I’m certainly open to it being true.
Very true again. I always strive to remember that God’s knowledge and logical capacity dwarves my own, and so just because I think something would make sense or wouldn’t, doesn’t mean I’m right. I could easily be missing something. My information is incomplete, God’s isn’t. I’d also be happy to see the verses you mentioned once you’re able to (I’m also in the path of the hurricane, God bless and stay safe).
My last comment about the hurricane was a bit callous, and I regret that. I don't wish it on anyone. It's getting a little crazy here, now, but I'm used to it. I grew up in Florida, and I've been through a lot of hurricanes.
BTW, I see a lot of tie-in to global warming ("climate change") on weather news. What a lot of bunk. It's a hurricane. They have been happening regularly since I've been alive. New lie, same goal.
P2:
I don’t have an opinion on how long that might be, and to me it doesn’t matter. The age of the earth isn’t an issue for me because I know God created it. If the world existed before with different animals, they would have remained in their species no matter how long they were there, which the absence of transitional species in the fossil record confirms was the case. The fact that fossils are ubiquitously found broken apart and thrown together in sedimentary rock confirms that they perished in a cataclysm of massive flooding. It confirms Genesis if the two-flood theory is genuine because the state of the earth in the first verses of Genesis was a world under water. If that is not how it happened, it still confirms Genesis because of the flood of Noah.
P3:
The geocentric notion was an extension of the ancient Greek model of Ptolemy, which became the "official" cosmology of the church. In Galileo’s time they were justifying it with scripture because language of the Bible (from the perspective of people on the earth) seemed to make it clear that the sun and the moon went around the earth.
I would like to point out that it is not religion in general that the failing powers meant to destroy. They meant to destroy Christianity in particular, which says much about where the truth of religion may be found. They are proven liars, and liars will attack the truth.
P4:
I understand your concerns, and they are valid. Personally, I am quite orthodox in my belief about essential matters––Jesus, the eternal word of God, Jesus being God made flesh to accomplish a final sacrifice for sin, His virgin birth, His effectual blood that cleanses sin, His eternal Father creating the universe through Him, the Holy Spirit being sent to uphold believers and present demonstrations of God’s power, etc. Where I depart from traditional thinking is in areas where doctrine defines and encapsulates scripture, like when people say miracles and gifts of the Spirit aren't happening anymore (because they say so). There is absolutely no scriptural basis for that, and you really have to stretch the word and deform its meaning to make that argument seem logical. Neither do I like the modern interpretations of prophecy with their timelines and charts (“modern” being since the 1800s). I think they have missed it big time, and it’s a perfect example of why your practice of being wary of new things until they are proven provides safety.
Those people are going to be very shocked at how things play out in the next few years. It is my opinion that this was a scheme of the enemy to distract the church from their true mission and put them into a fatalistic escape mentality: “It’s God’s will that evil will triumph, so it is useless to fight it. Might as well hunker down to wait for the rapture.” They don’t think this out loud, of course, but that is the effect. When the rapture finally comes, it will be a celebration, not a rescue. Jesus is coming for a spotless bride who has made herself ready, not for a bride in the hobbled dirty condition we see in large swaths of the church today. The Greek word referring to that event is very specific. It is the word used when the prominent persons from a town go out to meet an approaching dignitary on the road to escort him the rest of the way (“parousia,” not sure of the spelling). It does not mean an evacuation and cannot be construed to mean anything close to that.
I have long been wary of the dominant view of the “end times” because of its origin with a Jesuit priest (Fransisco Ribera, 1537-1591) whose purpose was to destroy the protestant church and take the heat off the pope, whom Protestant leaders were all declaring to be an antichrist. In any case, there is no way Satan can bring in his final antichrist to rule while empowered Christians are still on the earth resisting evil (2 Thess. 2:7, the Holy Spirit in us). What you are seeing is the devil's attempt to jump the timeline to bring it forth early, and it looks the same because the devil only ever had one plan. That plan has been laid out in the dominant evangelical end time prophetic interpretation, which worked very well to put them right to sleep. It was all based on the completely unjustified insertion of about 2000 years into the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, which is about the advent of the messiah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and nothing else. But they treat their added doctrinal error as if it were on the level of indisputable scripture, which was the first thing that made me suspect there was something fishy about it. My own research confirmed it, and no one can convince me that they’re right.
Concerning the controversy about the first two verses of Genesis, I have come to no conclusions. I just find it interesting and think it’s worth a look. In no way does it affect my faith, and the age of the earth isn’t an issue for me. It might actually turn out to be quite young even if it existed before a renovation. I also agree that the Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism, a flat earth, or anything like that, and I do not believe the solar system was formed in a planetary disc of matter under the influence of gravity. That view is about to be chucked by secular scientists anyway because there are too many problems with the model that strongly indicate is just can’t be true. (Just like the Theory of Evolution, just like the Big Bang Theory, and just like “official” archaeological and historical timelines that are all failing due to new evidence that can’t be denied. The Great Awakening is affecting everything, and every lie we have been told will fall to the wayside.)
P6:
I have been praying about the hurricane, and I’ve felt from the beginning there is something different about this one. Normally I would have “prayed it away,” but I had the sense there was purpose in it, and that I should wait upon God to know His will. I have my own ideas about what would be best for God to do in the situation, but I am not His counsellor, and He probably laughs at that. I all but dismissed it when I thought I heard God tell me it was coming to destroy Tampa, and if it does that and then goes right up I-4, it will confirm to me that He is “speaking” to the Democratic stronghold in that corridor. We are not that far away, but no one in our family has any fear (actually absolute peace to the point of boredom). God knows where we are, and He will keep us safe. When I return to share scriptures, you will know that He did. If Ian happens to peter out in the Gulf, I will rejoice in God’s mercy while I put back all the things I took out of the yard.
PS:
It occurs to me that it might be best to speak of scriptural things in private messages since much of that discussion would have little to do with the Great Awakening or Q, which is the purpose of this forum. Just a thought.